No Compulsion in Religion & Defamation from MPAC

http://www.mpac.org/assets/docs/publications/MPAC-defamations-of-religion.pdf

   
MPAC takes a legalistic & libertarian tack against blasphemy laws, asserting that the Qur'an supports open debate, not compulsion.  Lets look a little deeper, below the surface of a few crucial citations.  [Links added to quotes.]

Let there be no compulsion in religion, the truth stands out clear from error… (2:256)

 Say: O ye that reject Faith,! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that
which I worship, And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye
worship that which I worship, To you be your Way, and to me mine (109:1-6)

He was not permitted to force people to believe. (17:53-54; 88:21-22)

If the Prophet was commanded directly by God to just advise and persuade, who are we as ordinary
human beings to claim a higher mantle of authority and impose our beliefs on others?

2:256 Tafsir Ibn Kathir  mentions relation to the Ansar, whose children were among the Banu an-Nadir who were exiled from Medina. Unfortunately, Ibn Kathir leaves the story open ended, I suspect that there was an editing error somewhere along the way.  Other tafsirs complete the story and add more details.

    Certain women among the Ansar, whose sons died in infancy would swear to raise one who lived as a Jew.  Evidently they farmed their surviving sons out to wet nurses among the Banu an-Nadir.   When Moe drove the Banu an-nadir from their fortifified settlements [59:2, The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered] some of the Answar offspring opted to remain among the exiled Jews. Their mothers ran complaining to Moe, who revealed 2:256 to fit the occasion.  The story finds its fullest explication in these tafsirs:

• Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi
• Tafsir Al-Mizan [Select Surah 2 and enter 256 in the text box.]

    Mufti Shafi Usmani brings in a related argument not raised by the others in this context: the relationship between non compulsion and jihad, holding that the two are not in conflict. 

Keeping this verse in view, some people raise objections. They say
this verse tells us that there is no compulsion in faith, although the
teaching of jihad and qital (fighting) in Islam appears contrary to this
principle.
Looking at this a little carefully, we can find out that the objection
is not valid, since the teaching of jihad and qital in Islam is not to
coerce people into accepting Faith. Had it been so, why would there be
Islamic injunctions of jizyah to provide an umbrella of security for
kuffar (disbelievers) which protects their life, property and honour? [...]

It is for this reason that Allah Almighty has ordained that the
fasad created by these people should be removed by jihiid and qitl. So,
killing such people is like the killing of serpents, scorpions and their
harmful likes.

   
Usmani asserts that jihad is for the purpose of eradicating people who cause fitna, not about compelling them to convert to Islam. Note that he claims that jijya provides security for kuffar, protecting their life and property.  From whom does jizya protect them?  I have three clues for you, and will allow you to draw your own conclusion.

• These people have been informed of the orders about Jiziya. If you desire that there should be peace and security in the world, obey Allah and His Prophet. Thereafter none in Arabia and Ajam (Iran) shall dare cast an evil eye on you. But the rights of Allah and His Prophet can at no time be waived.

  If you do not accept these terms and set them aside, I do not need your presents and gifts. In that case, I shall have to wage war (to establish peace and security). Its result would be that the big ones shall be killed in war and the commoners shall be taken prisoners. [Letter to the rulers of Aqaba]

• [...]And whoever says: None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.' saves his wealth and his life from me[...] [Sahih Bukhari 9.92.388]
• Capitation tax is to be imposed  upon  Kitabees, because  this is mentioned in the Koran: and it is in the same manner to be imposed upon Majoosees, as the prophet imposed capitation-tax upon Majoosees.-- Capitation-tax is also to be imposed upon the idolaters of ajim (Persia) this is contrary to the opinion of Shafii, for he argues that destruction is incurred by all infidels; but the legality of abstaining from it, in sconsideration of a capitation-tax, with respect to Kitabees, is known from the word of the Koran, and with respect  to Majoosees, from the traditions; any others, therefore,  than those, (namely idolaters,) remain subject to the original penalty, which is destruction. [Hedaya, Volume II, Book IX, Chapter VIII, Page 212]

    In the matter of Surah Al-Kaafiroon, Tafsir Ibn Kathir informs us that the surah was revealed about Kafirs who challenged Moe to swap religions for a year. Rather than a statement of tolerance, it is a statement of rejection and immunity from their shirk.  [He commanded His Messenger to disavow himself from their religion completely]   Tafsir al-tustari informs us that Surah 109 was abrogated by 9:5; Tafsir al-Jalalayn & Tafsir Ibn Abbas cuncurr, citing   the "command to wage war" and "verses of fighting" respectively.

    Surah Al-Kaafiroon  was # 18 in seqeuence of revelation , Surah Al-Baqarah was # 87, both are abrogated by conflicting  ayat in Surah At-Taubah which was next to last in revelation. 

    Does Surah Al-Isra' 53-54 forbid compulsion?  Perhaps we should examine the context.

17:53. And say to My slaves (i.e. the true believers of Islâmic Monotheism) that they should (only) say those words that are the best. (Because) Shaitân (Satan) verily, sows disagreements among them. Surely, Shaitân (Satan) is to man a plain enemy.

17:54. Your Lord knows you best, if He will, He will have mercy on you, or if He will, He will punish you. And We have not sent you (O Muhammad ) as a guardian over them.

17:55. And your Lord knows best all who are in the heavens and the earth. And indeed, We have preferred some of the Prophets above others, and to Dawûd (David) We gave the Zabûr (Psalms).

17:56. Say (O Muhammad ): "Call unto those besides Him whom you pretend [to be gods like angels, Iesâ (Jesus), 'Uzair (Ezra), etc.]. They have neither the power to remove the adversity from you nor even to shift it from you to another person."

17:57. Those whom they call upon [like 'Iesa (Jesus) ­ son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzair (Ezra), angel, etc.] desire (for themselves) means of access to their Lord (Allâh), as to which of them should be the nearest and they ['Iesa (Jesus), 'Uzair (Ezra), angels, etc.] hope for His Mercy and fear His Torment. Verily, the Torment of your Lord is something to be afraid of!

17:58. And there is not a town (population) but We shall destroy it before the Day of Resurrection, or punish it with a severe torment. That is written in the Book (of our Decrees)

    I do not see mention of compulsion or toleration in that context, but I do see a threat of destruction, before the day of judgment. Perhaps you can find something of interest in Ibn Kathir tafsir of 17:53.

    Surah Surah Al-Ghaashiyah 21-22  looks swell until we examine the context. Of course, Muslims, who accuse us of "cherry picking" are prone to engage in selectivity. 

88:21. So remind them (O Muhammad ()), you are only a one who reminds.

88:22. You are not a dictator over them.

88:23. Save the one who turns away and disbelieves

88:24. Then Allâh will punish him with the greatest punishment.

    Moe is only one who reminds, not a dictator; then comes the exception clause, which MPAC did not cite for us.  Allah will punish the disbelievers.  Of course, punishment is not coercion.  Of course, Ibn Kathir had something to say about that. [The Messenger is only charged with delivering the Message]

(You are not a Musaytir over them.) Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid and others said, "You are not a dictator over them.'' This means that you cannot create faith in their hearts. Ibn Zayd said, "You are not the one who can force them to have faith.'' Imam Ahmad recorded from Jabir that the Messenger of Allah said,
(I have been commanded to fight the people until they say La ilaha illallah (none has the right to be worshipped except Allah). So if they say that, they have safeguarded their blood and wealth from me - except for what is rightfully due from it - and their reckoning is with Allah, the Mighty and Majestic.)'' Then he recited, (So remind them - you are only one who reminds. You are not a dictator over them -) This is how Muslim recorded this Hadith in his Book of Faith, and At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasa'i also recorded it in their Sunans in the Books of Tafsir. This Hadith can be found in both of the Two Sahihs.

you are not a taskmaster over them (a variant reading [for musaytir] has musaytir, that is to say, [not one who has been] given authority over them) - this was [revealed] before the command to struggle [against the disbelievers]. [Tafsir al-Jalalayn]

Moe can't make us believe, but he has been commanded to wage war upon us until we recite Shahada.  That is a clue for the clueless.    Surah Al-Anfal & Surah At-Taubah contain the jihad imperatives refered to above. Because they were among the last to be revealed, they abrogate earlier verses whith which they are in conflict. [2:106 & 16:101 establish the rule of abrogation.] The jihad imperatives are  commands to fight idolaters until only Allah is worshiped and people of the book until they are subjugated & extorted. 

8:39. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and polytheism: i.e. worshipping others besides Allâh) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allâh Alone [in the whole of the world ]. But if they cease (worshipping others besides Allâh), then certainly, Allâh is All-Seer of what they do.

9:29. Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allâh, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allâh and His Messenger (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islâm) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

    Those imperatives are codified in Shari'ah, best exemplified by Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Chapter 9.8 & 9.9. No compulsion?  Fighting Arabian pagans until they become Muslim is not compulsion. 

O9.9 The caliph fights all other peoples until they become Muslim (O: because they are not a people with a Book, nor honored as such, and are not permitted to settle with paying the poll tax (jizya) ) (n: though according to the Hanafi school, peoples of all other religions, even idol worshippers, are permitted to live under the protection of the Islamic state if they either become Muslim or agree to pay the poll tax, the sole exceptions to which are apostates from Islam and idol worshippers who are Arabs, neither of whom has any choice but becoming Muslim (al-Hidaya sharh Bidaya al-mubtadi' (y21), 6.48-49) ).

    I am not arguing with MPAC about the negative impliciations of the "defamation of religions" meme. The points raised fy Freedom House and other critics are valid, based on solid facts and logic.  I simply pointed out their practice of kitman: deception by obfuscation.   But this subject is raised in the context of two resolutions passed this year by the Human Rights Council and General Assembly. 

• A/HRC/16/L.38
• Draft resolution XVII

    The name has changed; the language has changed, but the meme has not changed. The OIC & UN have not abandoned "combating defamation of Islam".

Adopting measures to criminalize the incitement to imminent violence
based on religion or belief;

¶5(f) on page 5 of Draft resolution XVII,  "Adopting measures to criminalize" is a code phrase for legislation. They are demanding passage & enforcement to establish criminal punishment for publications such as Fitna, the Motoons and this blog post. Remember, Ban Ki-Moon defined the terms for us. 

Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

The resolutions demand passage and enforcement of legislation to criminalize criticmsm of Islam.  Another resolution, flying below the radar, passed the GA by concensus, without a vote.  ¶10, on page 3 of Draft resolution XVIII,  emphasizes that Islam must not be equated with terrorism   Equation with terrorism fits the defamation meme, and it has not been dropped or abandoned by the UN, it lives on in a concurrent resolution.

Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;

    The obvious was confirmed by our own Department of State last summer when they met the OIC at Istanbul to discuss implementation of the resolution.  This quote from the Secretary of State requires a little decoding. for the meaning of "intolerance" Refer back to the quote from Ban Ki-moon. [Following quotes from OIC Journal.]

“Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits
religious sensitivities against freedom of expression, and we
are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight
intolerance wherever it occurs.

    Our Ambassador to the HRC piled on.

A positive aspect of Resolution 16 /18 is that it did not
pit the principle of freedom of religion against freedom of
expression, said Ambassador Donahoe, rather it combined
them. “We believe that through free expression we are better
able to combat intolerance.”

    In response to OIC Journal query on defining what would
constitute incitement to hate, she clarified that in the US there
is a single case where freedom of expression can be restricted
or prohibited by the State, and that is when “incitement to
eminent violence”.

    In this context, she pointed out that the President, the
Secretary of State and several public officials went out on a
limb to publically condemn ‘Burn the Quran Day’ to show
that such abominable acts are not accepted. “When you have
the President, the Secretary of State and public figures jointly
condemning that, it will be more effective than throwing
that pastor in jail. I believe the same is true for the hateful
cartoons (of the Prophet). We should all be joining together
in conveying our disgust with such intolerance.”

"Intolerance" and "incitement to violence" mean: International Burn the Qur'an Day and the Motoons, just as Ban mischaracterized Fitna. 

    Allah had something to say about blasphemy. 

3:78. And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: "This is from Allâh," but it is not from Allâh; and they speak a lie against Allâh while they know it.

7:37. Who is more unjust than one who invents a lie against Allâh or rejects His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? For such their appointed portion (good things of this worldly life and their period of stay therein) will reach them from the Book (of Decrees) until, when Our Messengers (the angel of death and his assistants) come to them to take their souls, they (the angels) will say: "Where are those whom you used to invoke and worship besides Allâh," they will reply, "They have vanished and deserted us." And they will bear witness against themselves, that they were disbelievers.

6:93. And who can be more unjust than he who invents a lie against Allâh, or says: "I have received inspiration," whereas he is not inspired in anything; and who says, "I will reveal the like of what Allâh has revealed." And if you could but see when the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers, etc.) are in the agonies of death, while the angels are stretching forth their hands (saying): "Deliver your souls! This day you shall be recompensed with the torment of degradation because of what you used to utter against Allâh other than the truth. And you used to reject His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) with disrespect! "

10:17. So who does more wrong than he who forges a lie against Allâh or denies His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)? Surely, the Mujrimûn (criminals, sinners, disbelievers and polytheists) will never be successful!

    Moe's reaction to criticism is instructive: he had them murdered. I direct doubters & dissenters to List of Killings Ordered or Supported by Muhammad.

 Sahih Muslim Book 019, Number 4436:

It has been narrated on the authority of Jabir that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Who will kill Ka'b b. Ashraf? He has maligned Allah, the Exalted, and His Messenger. Muhammad b. Maslama said: Messenger of Allah, do you wish that I should kill him? He said: Yes. He said: Permit me to talk (to him in the way I deem fit). He said: Talk (as you like). So, Muhammad b. Maslama came to Ka'b and talked to him, referred to the old friendship between them and said: This man (i. e. the Holy Prophet) has made up his mind to collect charity (from us) and this has put us to a great hardship. When be heard this, Ka'b said: By God, you will be put to more trouble by him. Muhammad b. Maslama said: No doubt, now we have become his followers and we do not like to forsake him until we see what turn his affairs will take. I want that you should give me a loan. He said: What will you mortgage? He said: What do you want? He said: Pledge me your women. He said: You are the most handsome of the Arabs; should we pledge our women to you? He said: Pledge me your children. He said: The son of one of us may abuse us saying that he was pledged for two wasqs of dates, but we can pledge you (cur) weapons. He said: All right. Then Muhammad b. Maslama promised that he would come to him with Harith, Abu 'Abs b. Jabr and Abbad b. Bishr. So they came and called upon him at night. He came down to them. Sufyan says that all the narrators except 'Amr have stated that his wife said: I hear a voice which sounds like the voice of murder. He said: It is only Muhammad b. Maslama and his foster-brother, Abu Na'ila. When a gentleman is called at night even it to be pierced with a spear, he should respond to the call. Muhammad said to his companions: As he comes down, I will extend my hands towards his head and when I hold him fast, you should do your job. So when he came down and he was holding his cloak under his arm, they said to him: We sense from you a very fine smell. He said: Yes, I have with me a mistress who is the most scented of the women of Arabia. He said: Allow me to smell (the scent on your head). He said: Yes, you may smell. So he caught it and smelt. Then he said: Allow me to do so (once again). He then held his head fast and said to his companions: Do your job. And they killed him.

   
    Killing critics of Islam is not just sunnah, it is Islamic law. I invite doubters & dissenters to examine the relevant passages of  reliance of the Traveller, the Shafi'ite manual of fiqh, to verify the fatal fact. A conquered Jew or Christian, remaining in Dar al-Islam as a Dhimmi, who "mentions something impermissible" about Islam, reverts to the status of a prisoner of war who may be killed.

• Apostasay: penalty: O8.1
• definition: O8.7
• application to Dhimmis O11.10
• penalty applied to Dhimmis: O9.14

Sphere: Related Content

You've Been Mooned: Combating Defamation of Religions

The Secretary General of the United Nations issued his annual report on combating defamation of religions [Islam] September 23.  I present a link to the report below, along with several important excerpts. I have also included a list of links to various documents referenced in the report. 

A/66/372
Combating defamation of religions
Report of the Secretary-General

This issue came to the front burner in 1999 when the HRC passed the original resolution combating defamation of Islam.  Because of the ensuing  controversy, subsequent resolutions substituted religions for Islam in their titles but their contents belie the distinction without a difference.  My sources confirm the original title, but the document linked above lacks it; I presume it has been bowdlerized.

    It is difficult to find the resolution; in my search for it, I found an important quote attributed to Masood Khan, representing Pakistan at the UN.

"Stereotyping of any religion as propagating violence or its association with terrorism constitutes defamation of religion. It unfortunately breeds a culture of hatred, disharmony and discrimination,"

There is one little problem: the element of falsity.

def·a·ma·tion

    [def-uh-mey-shuhn] 

noun

the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the goodreputation of another, as by slander or libel;
calumny: She suedthe magazine for defamation of character. [Emphasis added]

"Islam promotes violence"

"Islam promotes violence" is not defamatory if it is true.  "Terrorism is an Islamic tactic" is not defamatory if it is true.  Those statements do not defame Islam or stereotype Muslims unless they are false. 

    "Islam promotes violence" is either true or false. The veracity of the statement can be verified by reference to Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  Allah said that he ordained jihad for Muslims.

2:216. Jihâd (holy fighting in Allâh's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allâh knows but you do not know.

Hilali & Khan included a definition of jihad in a parenthetical expression. They give a fuller definition in their footnote to 2:190.  Islamic law defines jihad as "to war against non-Muslims".  Islamic law declares annual military expeditions against disbelievers to be a "communal obligation".  Al-Shafi'i put it this way:

"The least that the imam must do is that he allow no year to pass without having organised a military expedition by himself, or by his raiding parties, according to the Muslims' interest, so that the jihad will only be stopped in a year for a (reasonable) excuse."

Al-Ghazali said something similar:

…one must go on jihad (i.e., warlike razzias or raids) at least once a year...

Islamic law says that the caliph "The caliph (o25) makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians... " In the next section (O9.9) it says that the caliph "fights all other peoples until they become Muslim".   Why would Islamic law  make such statements?   Only because of what Allah & Moe said and did.   "Ordained" was not Allah's last word on the subject.   "Fight them", "fight those who",  "Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you" . Moe said that he was "ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah."

What did Moe do to implement those jihad imperatives?  He dictated and dispatched extortion letters, and followed up with his army.  See. for example, the letter to the Jews at Khaibar, and the oral tradition about his raid on them.

    Examine the critical quote again, because I have a prime example for you: "Islam promotes violence".  This is the heading from Book 21 of Malik's Muwatta:  "Section: Stimulation of Desire for Jihad"  The title of Riyad us-Saliheen, Book 11, Chapter 234 is "Obligation of Jihad".  It quotes the relevant ayat & ahadith with commentary. 

    Islam is intrinsically violent, by design. It has not been perverted, distorted nor hijacked; it promotes violence because violence was Moe's source of income.  Doubt this?  How did Allah make Moe wealthy?

    This is not defamation of Islam because it is truthful, proven so by Islam's own canon.  This is not stereotyping of Muslims because Allah stated their obligations, defined believers as those who "fight in" his cause, promised them Paradise if they do and Hell if they don't.  Islam is all or nothing, Muslims are not allowed to select the verses they like.

"Terrorism is an Islamic tactic."

    Most of the Qur'anic references to terror are concerned with what Allah will do to when the world ends. Those are not important to this discussion; the others are. Allah said that he would cast terror.  He said that he cast terror. He said that the Jews were more afraid of Moe and his army than of him.

    Islam Awakened presents a table of 37 parallel translations. Here are some interesting samples from 8:57.

• to strike fear
• then scatter by (making an example of) them those who are in their rear
• deal with them in such a manner that those that follow them should abandon their designs and may take warning
• use them to frighten off anyone who comes in their rear
• set an example of their humiliation serving as a deterrent
  
• make a fearsome example of them
• disperse thou through them those behind them,
  
• make a harsh example of them
• deal with them in such a manner as to deter those behind them
• (by inflicting an exemplary punishment upon them) disperse those behind them
• make them a fearsome example
• so as to strike terror among them
• then thereby strike fear in those that are behind them
•  strike terror in those that are behind them
• make of them a fearsome example

8:60 is another prime source of terror references.

• to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies
• to strike terror into the hearts and minds of Allah's enemy
• you terrorize/terrify with it God's enemy
•  to strike terror thereby
•  so that you may strike terror into the hearts of your enemy
• Cause terror with this (war readiness) amongst the enemy of Allah
•  so that you strike terror into the enemies of Allah
• to frighten thereby the enemy of Allah
  
•  that you may strike terror in (the hearts of) the enemies of God
  
• whereby you may frighten the enemy of ALLAH
• to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God
• you shall strike terror through it
• to threaten the enemy of Allah
•  that you may overawe the enemies of Allah
• whereby ye may strike a terror into the enemy of God,
• whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God

    Moe also had something to say about how he was made victorious:  " Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. "; "I have been made victorious with terror ". Who associated Islam with terrorism? 
            

    Back to the report, this paragraph quotes from another big title officer. [Emphasis added.]

79. In March 2011, the Office was informed that church members of the Dove
World Outreach Center in Gainesville, Florida, burned a copy of the Koran. The
incident elicited strong condemnation on the part of the United States Government
and religious leaders from different faiths across the world. It also resulted in
violent reactions, including the killing of United Nations staff and others in
Afghanistan. Both the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-
General replied to letters from the Organization of the Islamic Conference
condemning those acts, which divided peoples and societies, and reaffirming the
collective interest of the international community in countering acts of intolerance.
The Secretary-General also condemned the incident and said that such actions
cannot be condoned by any religion. He also condemned the killing of the United
Nations staff in response. In addition, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on
freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of
racism sent joint communications about those incidents.

Qur'an burning

    Pastors Terry & Sapp hosted a moot trial of the Qur'an, conducted in Arabic and spanning four hours prior to the burning.  The trial included a qualified Imam and several expert witnesses, at least two of whom are converts from Islam to Christianity.  Why would they find the Qur'an "guilty" of inciting violence?

    The violent reactions did not result from the trial & burning of the Qur'an, they resulted from rabble rousing Imams spewing hatred at Jumah Salat.  Check out the day and time of those riots. They occurred after Friday prayers. 

    UN staff had nothing to do; no connection to the trial & burning of the Qur'an in Florida.  There is no logical relationship between the two acts.   Peoples and societies are divided by the belief of some that they have a divine obligation to conquer the rest.  What did Allah & Moe say that might give them that conceited idea?

    Qur'an burning is an act of outrage, not intolerance.  The Qur'an does not tolerate the existence of disbelievers. Our right to live and worship as we choose or not is the primary issue at stake.  Islam's canon denies those rights, inciting outrage which is expressed by incinerating Qur'ans. 

    The trial & burning of the Qur'an was not condoned by Christianity, it was performed by two pastors and their congregation.  They burned the book which curses them, condemns them to Hell and commands Muslims to wage war upon them. 

    ¶79 is an obvious demand for legislation to prohibit criticizing Islam & burning Qur'ans.  It blames the innocent for the independent criminal actions of the guilty.

81. General Comment No. 34 recognizes that “freedom of opinion and freedom of
expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person ...
they constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society”. It
further recognizes that “freedoms of opinion and expression form a basis for the full
enjoyment of a wide range of other human rights”.
82. The General Comment also expounded the extent of lawful restrictions that
can be imposed on the right to freedom of expression, prescribing that any
restrictions to freedom of expression must be compatible with the strict
requirements of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The General Comment also deals with the relationship between
articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
prescribing that “a limitation that is justified on the basis of article 20 must also
comply with article 19, paragraph 3”. On this point, it underscores that “it is only
with regard to the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States
parties are obliged to have legal prohibitions”. In every other case — while the State
is not precluded in general terms from having such prohibitions — in which the
“State restricts freedom of expression, it is necessary to justify the prohibitions and
their provisions in strict conformity with article 19”.

    I do not see any sign that Ban Ki-moon shares the opinion of the committee of experts who composed Comment 34. 

88. The Special Rapporteurs emphasized the principle that individuals rather than
religions per se are rights-holders. Whereas the debate concerning the dissemination
of expression which may offend the adherents of religions or faiths has throughout
the past 12 years evolved around the notion of “defamation of religions”, they
welcomed the fact that the debate appeared to be shifting to the concept of
“incitement to national, racial or religious hatred”. In his thematic report at the
sixteenth session of the Human Rights Council,3 the Special Rapporteur on freedom
of religion or belief noted that school education could and should contribute to the
elimination of negative stereotypes, which often poison the relationship between
different communities. He stressed that such negative stereotypes had particularly
detrimental effects on minorities and with regard to religious or belief communities.
The Special Rapporteur highlighted the importance of eradicating stereotypes and
prejudices that constitute the root causes of fear, resentment and hatred in order to
prevent violence and human rights abuses.

    I presented sufficient evidence to establish the fact that Islam is not defamed by describing its jihad imperatives & promotion of war through carrot and stick doctrines.  If a Muslim goes to war, he goes to Paradise; if not, he goes to Hell.  Stating this fatal fact is not defamatory because it is truthful, based on Surah At-Taubah 38-39 & Surah As-Saff  10-13.

    At the time of its publication, Ban Ki-moon described Fitna,  Geert Wilders' short documentary exposing the nexus between the Qur'an & terrorism as "hate speech" & "incitement".  It is the Qur'an, not Fitna which constitutes "hate speech" & "incitement" to hatred and violence. 

Negative stereotypes

    If a Muslim is a believer, he "fights in Allah's cause", "killing others and being killed".  That definition of believer is contained in Surah At-Taubah 111.  Muslims are commanded to "Obey Allah and the Messenger". Allah commanded them to fight us until only Allah is worshiped; until we are subjugated and submit to extortion.  Are they then Muslims who sit at home?  Surely they are hypocrites, not believers who are only those who join the jihad.

    Allah said "Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. " How is a Muslim to obey Moe without emulating his exemplary conduct?  What did he say about how he was made victorious?  How did Allah make him wealthy??

    You can not be Muslim without being evil. That is a fatal fact, not a negative stereotype. Allah commands obedience, which he rewrds with gardens flowing with rivers of wine and punishes with the fire.  What did he command Muslims to do?  Was there something about cutting off our heads, fingers and toes?  8:12

    What did Moe do to the men and adolescent boys of the Banu Qurayzah?  He besieged them for two weeks, when they surrendered he slaughtered them in beautiful downtown Medina.  How in Hell does a Muslim obey Allah and his Messenger without engaging in terrorism & genocide??  This is a fact, not a negative stereotype.  "It is not for a Prophet" that he should hold prisoners for ransom until he has made great slaughter.  This is not negative stereotyping, it is stating the fatal facts as contained in Islam's canon.   If Allah's slaves are offended by revelation of these fatal facts, they should break his yoke of slavery and rejoin the human race. 

89. The contributions received indicate that States are addressing the upsurge
in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of the world in various
ways. States and national actors are taking measures to combat these
phenomena and the majority of these actions are in the constitutional and
legislative domain. The principles of equality and non-discrimination as well as
freedom of religion and freedom of expression and opinion are provided for at
the highest level through constitutional enshrinement. Most States have such
provisions on freedom of expression and opinion and freedom of religion and
belief, to varying extents. Some States have prohibitions, inter alia, on the
vilification and desecration of religious symbols, sites, places of worship, and
sacred grounds. In the submissions received, there is often a concurrent
criminal regime for the prohibition of actions infringing the freedom of religion
and belief at the national level. Where advocacy and incitement to hatred is
criminalized, it is often prohibited on several grounds, including racial,
national and ethnic or religious.

incitement, intolerance and hatred

    On what day of the week and at what time of day do riots, bombing & burning of churches and the homes & business of Christians occur in Africa, Arabia & Asia?  Why on friday?  Why after Jumah Salat?  There is no innocent explanation.  What does Allah tell Muslims to do?  What did Moe do that they must emulate?  Do expressions such as "fight them until" and "be harsh against them" have any meaning for you?  Do you have a brain?  Can you obtain a clue??

freedom of religion

    Where in domestic or international law is the right to conquer enshrined?  Muslims are commanded to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped on a global scale.  Muslims are commanded to fight Jews & Christians until we are subjugated and submit to perpetual extortion.  We must not build or repair churches, display crosses, ring church bells, hold public processions or funerals. 

    If there is no right to conquer, then there is no right to practice Islam.  Show me, by God, exactly where the right to invade & conquer is enshrined in law other than in Reliance of the Traveller, Hedaya & Risala. 

    Where in domestic or international law is the right to rape enshrined?  Show me, by God, exactly where it is written that Muslims have a right to sexually exploit capive women except in the Qur'an, hadith, and Shari'ah compiled there from!  God bless you, can you read and comprehend?  What is the meaning of this:

4:24. Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those (captives and slaves) whom your right hands possess. ...

I entered the Mosque and saw Abu Said Al-Khudri and sat beside him and asked him about Al-Azl (i.e. coitus interruptus). Abu Said said, "We went out with Allah's Apostle for the Ghazwa of Banu Al-Mustaliq and we received captives from among the Arab captives and we desired women and celibacy became hard on us and we loved to do coitus interruptus. So when we intended to do coitus interrupt us, we said, 'How can we do coitus interruptus before asking Allah's Apostle who is present among us?" We asked (him) about it and he said, 'It is better for you not to do so, for if any soul (till the Day of Resurrection) is predestined to exist, it will exist." [Bukhari 5.59.459]

    Moe did not just say he was ordered to fight us, he said that until we become Muslims our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights.  Exactly how in Hell can there be a right to believe that, propagate it and act upon it?  If there is any such right, then all our rights are null and void.  It is therefore impossible that there can be any right to propagate and practice Islam. 

freedom of expression

    The first amendment to the US Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.  It therefore remains legal for me to reveal the fatal facts of Islam as documented by its canon of scripture, tradition, exegesis & jurisprudence.  This is exactly what Ban Ki-moon & co. seek to outlaw.

    If we can not accurately name and describe the enemy and his doctrines & practices, then we will be rendered defenseless.  That is their objective.  If you harbor any doubts about this, crack open the Risala & Reliance of the Traveller and start reading.  If the expression "anything impermissible" is too vague for you, turn to O8.7 to see the detailed list of prohibited speech.

91. A number of other actions and measures have been highlighted in the
contributions. The importance of public education in promoting tolerance and
understanding in the public education system was noted. The value of ongoing
public awareness-raising by the State, national human rights institutions,
non-governmental organizations, faith groups and religious organizations, the
media and other partners at the national level especially was underlined. The
media has a significant role, and some contributions highlighted its use in
educating the public about different cultures and religions, in counteracting
contentious political discourse and divisive speech, and as a means for
disseminating balanced information and portrayals, as well as bringing
together groups and adherents of different religions and faiths.

    ¶91 promotes indoctrination, not education.

promoting tolerance

    What could be more  obnoxious?  How can any sentient & self-respecting lover of life & liberty tolerate the arrogant assumption of supremacism which assumes global conquest to be a divine right & mandate?  I can not tolerate that which seeks to disposses & kill me, enslaving my widow and orphans.  I can not accept any suggestion or demand that I should tolerate it. 

awareness raising

    Ban seeks to criminalize raising awareness of the existential threat of Islam.  He wants the organs of the state to spew propaganda and paint a false image of benign & anodyne religion; the polar opposite of the objective factual reality of Islam. 

balanced information

    I prefer truthful information that can be objectively evaluated and verified.  That is why I provide links to my sources so that readers can explore the context and verify the quotes.  Allah said "fight them"; Moe said "I am commanded to fight".  Moe fought in 17 battles and ordered about 60 more in which he did not directly participate.  Sahih Bukhari's books of Jihad & Expedition describe the circumstances of some of those battles.  The book of Khumus describes how Moe divided the loot.  Tafsirs confirm the obvious meaning of Allah's jihad imperatives. Shari'ah codifies what Allah said and Moe did.  Africa, Arabia, half of Asia and South East Europe were not conquered by a "religion of peace"  Peace has no part in barbarian conquest.  This subject matter requires truth,  not not malignant malarkey. 

External references cited in the report:

• A/66/251
• 65/224
• ICCPR Art. 27
• HRC resolution 16/18
• 65/138
• ICCPR  Art. 19 & 20
• Draft Document Durban Review Conference
• Human Rights Committee  General Comment No. 34
• OHCHR expert workshops on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred
• A/HRC/16/53

Sphere: Related Content

Defamation of Religions Resolution Passed in Third Committee

Draft was adopted with 76 votes in favor, 64 against and 42 abstentions.

GA Third Committee Revised Draft Resolution "Combating defamation of religions"Development [Eye on the UN]

The link is to an earlier version, prior to the substitution of vilification for defamation.  The Volokh Conspiracy indicates that it was the more recent  amended version which was approved.

76–64 with 42 abstentions. 
http://volokh.com/2010/11/24/un-general-assembly-passes-another-resolution-urging-nations-to-forbid-defamation-of-religion/
81–55 with 43  '09  26

-5    9            -1

Many of the news reports  mention the decreasing level of support for the resolution.  So it got five fewer votes in favor and nine more in opposition. Big deal, it still passed.  While the trend is encouraging, it is not satisfying.

    The U.N.'s press release is ambiguous, leaving uncertainty about the identity and content of the draft which was voted on.

The draft resolution on the Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, would have the Assembly condemn all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, as well as any incitement to religious hatred through the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media.  It would go on to emphasize that “no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned”.  Nicholas Nihon of Belgium, the main sponsor, noted with regret that in order to achieve consensus, the text carried no reference to the right of persons to change their faith, or not to adhere at all to any religion or belief.  Action on the draft was preceded by the introduction of another draft by Morocco on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, on combating defamation of religions that would, among several points, have the Assembly express deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with terrorism.

L.32/Rev.1   Elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief  Oral revision not reflected in this version.

10. Also emphasizes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this
may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion
or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Expresses deep concern, in this respect, that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism; [combating defamation / vilification of Islam]

These similar provisions fly in the face of the Qur'an's five explicit and two implicit references to casting terror and two statements by Moe in which he bragged about winning with terror.  Have any of these idiots read The Qur'anic Concept of War? Why would a Pakistan army training manual use such language?

Terror struck into the hearts of the enemies is not only
a means, it is the end in itself. Once a condition of terror into
the opponent's heart is obtained, hardly anything is left to be
achieved. It is the point where the means and the end meet
and merge. Terror is not a means of imposing decision upon
the enemy; it is me decision we wish to impose upon him.

 

(i) To ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation and in
conformity with international human rights law, the freedom of all persons and
members of groups to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian
institutions is fully respected and protected;

The obvious connection with the Holy Land Foundation trial can not be ignored. Zakat of 2.5% is assessed on wealth and transactions. 1/8 of zakat is allocated to those "fighting in Allah's cause".

(l) To promote, through the educational system and other means, mutual
understanding, tolerance, non-discrimination and respect in all matters relating to
freedom of religion or belief by encouraging, in the society at large, a wider
knowledge of different religions and beliefs and of the history, traditions, languages
and cultures of the various religious minorities existing within their jurisdiction;

This provision is an obvious demand that our schools be used to indoctrinate students with hagiographic images of Islam, falsely portraying it as a "religion of peace"  They are waging war against us, trying to out breed & subvert us and we are supposed to tolerate it. Yeah, right.  We are supposed to respect a war cult whose members believe that they have a divine mission to conquer us. Yeah, right. 

    This vote by the third committee sets the stage for final passage by the General Assembly next month.  That will give Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Pakistan and others immoral support for the local laws used to persecute minorities. 

    On a parallel track, running under the radar, the HRC's Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards is working on a protocol to inject the resolution's provisions into ICERD, giving them the force of international law.  Few know about this, nobody is doing anything to stop it. Now is the time to rise up and raise Hell!   For liberty's sake, sign, publicize, promote and share this petition:  International Qur'an Petition.

Sphere: Related Content